the sotu

Talk is talk.  And it's cheap, too.  I was actually glad at Obama's visible frustration, but it's misplaced.

Obama railed against both parties over gridlock.  I think gridlock's good, of course, but the truth is that Republicans deserve little credit for it.  Dems have had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate since Al Franken took office, and Scott Brown hasn't even been seated yet.  The only reason the Senate's not playing "Beat the Clock" to get healthcare reform through right now is because Democrats refuse to play along.  And the most destructive thing the House has passed -- Cap and Trade -- got a few Republican votes.

I don't want to sound elitist.  But taking Obama's speech seriously requires buying into the premise that government exists to solve problems.  That's not why government exists, and it's not what government does.

Ultimately, it is individuals who solve problems, usually working for their own benefit.  A doctor cures a chef's cancer in exchange for some good food.  Or perhaps he cures it in exchange for a Mercedes, and the chef prepares meals for the assembly line workers as part of a more elaborate arrangement that lands the doctor a car.

Government exists because the doctor, the chef and the assembly line workers want to protect their arrangement.  If I work hard, someone else could take the product of my labor by force, denying me whatever benefit I was seeking when I labored.  I work for carrots, and the government carries a stick to ensure that my carrots remain mine.

That stick is all government has going for it.  And that's important, because as soon as we start to think that government should "solve problems," then we are saying those problems should be solved with sticks rather than carrots.  Government goes from protecting your sovereignty over your labor to assuming sovereignty over you.

As I said, ultimately it is individuals who solve problems, working for their own benefit.  You benefit from what I do, and I do it in exchange for whatever benefit you offer me.  Putting government in charge of solving problems means that some people must work for the "benefit" of staying out of jail -- while others receive a benefit without earning it.  Government's not solving problems at all -- that's still being done by individuals -- but the benefit system is radically altered in the process.

Obama wants you to see the left and right squabbling over the fruit of your future labor.  But in reality, you benefit the most when both sides are unable to reach an agreement on seizing it from you in the first place.

And while Obama complains about partisanship, obstructionism and gridlock, to those of us who know better he might has well be up at the podium for an hour and a half chanting, "Four legs good, two legs better."

Which, in fact, is pretty much what he was doing.

Comments

[A Freeman]

Idiocracy Quotes:

Pvt. Joe Bowers: Today I step into the shoes of a great man, a man by the name of President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.

President Camacho: Sh!t. I know sh!t's bad right now, with all that starving bullsh!t, and the dust storms, and why come we running out of french fries and burrito coverings. But I got a solution.
South Carolina Representative # 1: That's what you said last time, dipsh!t!
South Carolina Representative # 2: Yeah, I got a solution, you're a d!ck! South Carolina, what's up!

Carl's Jr. Computer: Enjoy your EXTRA BIG @SS FRIES!
Woman at Carl's Jr.: You didn't give me no fries, I got an empty box.
Carl's Jr. Computer: Would you like another EXTRA BIG @SS FRIES?
Woman at Carl's Jr.: I said I didn't get any!
Carl's Jr. Computer: Thank you! Your account has been charged. Your balance is zero. Please come back when you can afford to make a purchase.
Woman at Carl's Jr.: What? Oh no, NO!
[She hits the machine. An alarm goes off, and a sign appears on the computer saying "WARNING! Carl's Jr. Frowns Upon Vandalism"]
Carl's Jr. Computer: I'm sorry you're having trouble. I'm sorry you're having trouble.
Woman at Carl's Jr.: Come on! My kids are starvin'!
Carl's Jr. Computer: [the woman kicks the computer, and it sprays a fast-acting tranquilizer in her face] This should help you calm down. Please come back when you can afford to make a purchase. Your kids are starving. Carl's Jr. believes no child should go hungry. You are an unfit mother. Your children will be placed in the custody of Carl's Jr. Carl's Jr... "F*ck You, I'm Eating."
[Joe approaches the computer]
Carl's Jr. Computer: Welcome to Carl's Jr. Would you like to try our EXTRA BIG @SS TACO? Now with more MOLECULES!

Rita: You think Einstein walked around thinkin' everyone was a bunch of dumb shits?
Pvt. Joe Bowers: Yeah. Hadn't thought of that.
Rita: Now you know why he built that bomb.

The only thing wrong with Idiocracy is the plot resolve where things get bad enough to where those in power defer to those of greater ability and intelligence; that and the hack job FOX did to a fairly decent parody movie.

[Roberta Epstein-Bader]

John, I think that your underlying premise - that government doesn't help solve problems; individuals do - has some flaws. The Government is made up of Individuals...but that sometimes feels debatable...

Slavery - free market and the Constitution/Declaration of Independence supported it, gov't got rid of it.

Nature Conservation - The gov't created the National Parks against the wishes of the big titans of Industry in the late 1800's...the JP Morgans, Rockefellers, etc, would have gladly strip-mined and clear-cut their way from coast-to-coast.

[John Galt]

Hi Roberta,

Slavery was viewed as a necessary evil to secure ratification of the Constitution. Note, also, that it was "grandfathered out" by design.

Furthermore, slavery is a government problem, because it requires that the government recognize one man as the property of another, and enforce that property right. So to suggest that government "fixed" slavery overlooks the reality -- which is that we fixed government to no longer permit it.

As for nature conservation, natural resources are best protected in the hands of private owners with a perpetual financial stake in them. There are many who would clear-cut government land if it weren't preserved as national parks, but selling the land and protecting the rights of the owner accomplishes the same thing without violating the Constitution (as there is no Constitutional provision for national parks).

In the Pacific northwest, there are places where land belonging to conglomerates like Weyerhauser abuts federal property. Both properties are logged, but only the Weyerhauser land is religiously replanted and cultivated. See the difference?

[John Galt]

A. Freeman -- I'm sold. I just put Idiocracy in my Netflix queue. I'm thinking I might end up owning a copy of that one!

[A Freeman]

This is the graph of 10,000 MoveOn.org responses to the SOTU. The middle line is their average response.

http://i.usatoday.net/communitymanager/_photos/green-house/2010/01/29/moveonx-large.jpg

I am very bullish about the 4 things he said that they hated and not that frightened by the 5 things he said that they liked.

Obama's next budget has a tripling of nuclear power loan guarantees totalling about 54 Bil $US. This is about half of what is being requested by potential power plant builders.

Right now, I think China is building 18 new reactors, and the USA's building 1 right now. Let's maintain and widen our lead in the energy security race.

If we can go from the USA's current 100 nuke plants generating 20% of our electricity to say 200 plants generating 40% this is a real increase in our common prosperity that will make a better future for our children regardless of all the anti-individualist nanny state idiocies the Obama era will pass into law.

[Manifesto Joe]

John, we've obviously had different life experiences. In mine, problems are usually solved by individuals who are forced into the indignity of working for someone else, usually some ass-kissing corporate lackey, who then steals the idea and takes credit for it.

Is an enlarged government the panacea to the human condition as such? No. But neither is unbridled capitalism, which, in my experience, rewards such larcenous behavior and regularly sells talent on the marketplace as a depersonalized commodity. To depict it as some kind of personal utopia for the gifted individual runs very contrary to my experience as a lifelong employee of private concerns.

I haven't read that much Ayn Rand, but enough to get the gist of it. I got through "For the New Intellectual" and "The Virtue of Selfishness," and actually played the prosecutor in a little theater production of "On the Night of January 16th."

Having read some about Rand's youth, escaping the Soviet Union, etc., it's very understandable how she would have arrived at the conclusions she did. Her life led her to a hard anti-collectivist POV, and as a teenager, I agreed. But I was a romantic as a youth, with no firsthand experience with life as a nonconforming person of working-class origins. When I found myself, a Mensan with certain talents, but a nobody from nowhere, going up against highly connected people of affluent backgrounds, my POV changed, very quickly.

Ultimately, extreme anti-collectivism is no more an answer to the human condition than is extreme collectivism. To me it seems wise to hedge one's bets.

[John Galt]

Manifesto Joe:
problems are usually solved by individuals who are forced into the indignity of working for someone else, usually some ass-kissing corporate lackey, who then steals the idea and takes credit for it.

Who "forces" you to work for someone else? Where is the "indignity" in working for someone else?

If you work for a corporation, don't they own the ideas?

Capitalism is not an "ism". It's not a formal arrangement -- it's just something people do with their own earnings when their property rights are protected. It's what people do when they are free.

You have a problem with "unbridled" freedom?